VB100 Feb 2005 Results are out.....

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Firecat, Feb 2, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Hello guys!

    Check this link for the results of VB100 Feb 2005 (Windows NT).....

    http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200502

    The results are very interesting:-

    ArcaVir,F-Secure, F-Prot, McAfee and MicroWorld (eScan) have failed.....

    I don't know why this should be as all of these are very good AntiVirus scanners.

    Any idea guys?

    Regards,
    Firecat
     
  2. JimIT

    JimIT Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,035
    Location:
    Denton, Texas
    Just guessing, but probably due to a fp or two.
     
  3. Unity

    Unity Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Posts:
    112
    Location:
    Toulouse ~ France
    woaa F-Secure and Mcafee ... wish i could read the details tho.
     
  4. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    You and me, unity. You and me.
     
  5. Unity

    Unity Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Posts:
    112
    Location:
    Toulouse ~ France
    on the other hand , all the free AV have earned a VB100 award :ninja:
     
  6. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    The last time eScan failed, it was due to a problem with the update server. The same could be happening now.F-Secure never had many problems with false positives, especially now when they use the upcoming AVP/KAV 6.0 engine...McAfee? possible, as I heard that some people were calling the service center here to report a few viruses which were caught by enterprise versions but not the home versions....

    But F-Prot has remained quite good. I wonder what's wrong? and MKS-Vir (now ArcaVir I think) has also performed very well here.. Or all users of these products are at risk and should change?

    Regards,
    Firecat
     
  7. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Ditto. And so has Quickheal, which has the worst detection I've ever seen in an AV thats so aggressively marketed in our country... On posters, backs of cars and buses, magazines, stores...
     
  8. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,749
    Location:
    Texas
    No. It's just one test. There are others.

    http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/about/index.xml
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2005
  9. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Well I see. Thanks. What are your views on why these products failed, Ron?
     
  10. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,749
    Location:
    Texas
  11. Honyak

    Honyak Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Posts:
    346
    Location:
    Deep South
    VB %100 has never been a deciding factor in my choice of AV's. To me this test simply confirms that no AV is %100 at Identifying virii %100 of the time. Look at Kaspersky, 25 pass and 13 fail. This test does perform a service to the AV developers, but I have never used it to make my decision on what AV to use.
    I have read that sometimes VB100 does not set the scanners up correctly or some other technical problems occur. I do not know if this is true or not.
    Just because it fails a few times does not mean you should dump your AV.
     
  12. Ianb

    Ianb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Posts:
    232
    Location:
    UK
    The Avast FAIL last year was all because they refused to CONFIGURE the scanner and used it "Out Of The Box".

    I don't care about these tests they are rubbish. To see what's in the REAL WILD and what catches it I'd rather monitor Jotti (shame they don't have McAfee and Norton though - or use an XP server as opposed to a unix one).
     
  13. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    All are tested that way ;)

    ...because they either refused to participate or have withdrawn their product.
    Jordi Bosveld FYI removed overall stats as for product results; thus there's no way to get an overall view by looking at Jotti's site at random times - which only focusses on non-viral malware.

    What's wrong with that? engines and signature updates are one and the same.

    regards,

    paul
     
  14. dan_maran

    dan_maran Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Posts:
    1,053
    Location:
    Stamford, CT
    I am taking this set from VB100 with a grain of salt, as Microsoft has stopped supporting NT. I know that the virus signatures should work anyway but as I don't use NT at all anymore, total migration to 2000, this one test doesn't help much.
     
  15. profhsg

    profhsg Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Posts:
    145
    If you want more information on which product failed and why, the NOD32 home site, http://www.nod32.com, has a link to a pdf version of the full VB magazine article on the NT test. It's the "here" button in the little blurb bragging about NOD32's latest pass on the VB test.
     
  16. Unity

    Unity Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Posts:
    112
    Location:
    Toulouse ~ France
    Thx for the link :)

    Too bad that they don't list false positive. Because it would probably explain
    why some of the well known AV didn't have the VB100 in the lastest test.

    You can also see really clearly , the AV that are focusing on the ITW samples :D
     
  17. Acadia

    Acadia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Posts:
    4,048
    Location:
    SouthCentral PA
    I'm puzzled by the NOD website. They claim that they have had a perfect 100% score for the past seven years, yet when I go to Virus Bulletin, NOD has had three fails within that time. o_O

    Acadia
     
  18. profhsg

    profhsg Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Posts:
    145

    I think that their exact claim is that they haven't missed an ITW virus in a VB test in the last seven years. The three fails may have been because of false positives. If this is correct, then their claim is accurate in that they haven't missed an ITW virus on a VB test.
     
  19. mikel108

    mikel108 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Posts:
    1,057
    Location:
    SW Ontario, Canada
    Virus Bulletin will help to form an opinion about a product. However it is only a piece to the puzzle. Would you rather have the odd false positive that you have to scan with Jotti, or would you rather have a AV that misses viruses?? Also, could you imagine having a product that finds a 100% of all malware, but is unstable and constantly crashes.
     
  20. mjboon

    mjboon Guest

  21. visiting

    visiting Guest

    Why did they test with NOD version 1.529o_O?
     
  22. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    That number is a virud definition build,not a program version number.
     
  23. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    The tests in the reprints show NOD's 2003-04 performance :mad: Bet I can blame eScan's failure on the scan restrictions MicroWorld placed (not scanning CAB, JAR and other file types..plus having size restriction on all archives...) luckily I can remove those... :cool:
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2005
  24. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    They don't test free version but full featured commercial one...
     
  25. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Um...Yes.

    RejZor,

    You might know I use the commercial version of eScan, and being very close to MicroWorld (almost their 'official' representative for this forum, almost because I am not an employee, but they've told me to keep watch here in these forums), I know the latest version of eScan commercial very well.It has these restrictions thingy (v2.6.501.8 onwards). I told them not to put it and they told me that I can remove the restrictions if I want (and that's just what I did). I think thats what cost them the VB100 this time.

    Regards,
    Firecat
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.